(NaturalNews) It has been more than four months now since the most comprehensive study evaluating the health risks associated with a lifetime of consuming genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) was published in a credible, peer-reviewed scientific journal. And to this day, the mainstream scientific community is still busy manufacturing lies about the study in an attempt to discredit it.
In case you missed it, a French study back in September found that rats fed a lifetime of Monsanto's GM NK603 corn developed severe organ damage and cancerous tumors, among other major health problems. The study is the only one, to date, to fully evaluate the effects of GMO consumption over a lifetime, as opposed to the typical 90 days maximum typically evaluated by the biotechnology industry. (http://www.naturalnews.com)
But the release of this timely and pertinent study has not been received well by those with a vested interest in promoting GMOs, not to mention scientists who benefit handsomely from industry-backed grants and other corporate financial support. Thus, there has been an onslaught of misinformation released regarding the study that aims to minimize and discredit its findings.
"Within hours of the study's release, it was shouted down as flawed and meaningless by a chorus of scientist critics," writes Claire Robinson for Public Service Europe (PSE) about the unfolding scenario surrounding the study's release. "The focus of the story shifted from the alarming health risks of a poorly tested GM food to 'junk science' that should never have been published."
Politicians, mainstream media attempt to destroy GMO rat study
One particularly vocal purveyor of lies following the study's release was Corinne Lepage, a member of the European Parliament. Almost immediately after the study was published, Lepage declared it to be a "bomb," echoing the irrational sentiments of many others throughout government and industry who were apparently deeply offended by the the study's findings.
The mainstream media quickly joined in on the deception as well, repeating lies that the study was poorly conducted, for instance, or that the rats used were already prone to developing tumors regardless of what they ate. In truth, the rats were of the same common breed used by Monsanto and many other companies to test product safety. And the study itself was conducted in accordance with rigorous scientific standards.
"Contrary to the critics' message, the 'scientific community' has not united to condemn Seralini's study," adds Robinson. "Many scientists, unconnected with Seralini's group, are alarmed by what they see as suppression of scientific findings that are inconvenient to commercial or political interests ... All studies have flaws and limitations. But many said that this was the most detailed study that had ever been done on the health effects of a GM food that's already in our food supply."
PSE has since set up a support page for Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen, the main author of the GMO rat study, that contains further details about this landmark study, as well as responses to the critics' lies about its findings. You can access that page here: http://gmoseralini.org/